A Cynic’s View Of Relationship Sex

There’s a sizable contingent of “red pillers” who believe that the male urge to have sex with a variety of women is, if you take their consternation at face value, unnatural. I never did get this line of attack against the degenerate poz. While I can’t fault the intention, the premise is based on a lie that feeds directly into feminist myth-making about the psychological sameness of the sexes.

This belief, and resulting admonition, that men are naturally monogamous and only desire poosy varietals when there’s something wrong with their mental state is not just wrong, it’s malignant, and will paradoxically cause a lot of men trouble within the confines of their monogamous relationships!

Reader superslaviswife echoes this CH sentiment and explains how the “cads are sickos” theory of the sexual market actually harms men’s ability to create and sustain monogamous relationships.

Something I do wonder about is the staleness of “the regular”. Many Beta males, as far as I have heard, are happy enough to get regular sex or sexual access, to see a naked woman daily, that the actual frequency, variety and duration of sexual sessions doesn’t matter to them. Here we get two problems:

1: Women need to see men as sexual beings constantly on the ready and on the prowl. You can’t be non-sexual 99% of the time and expect a woman to be aroused the remaining 1%. Even women with high sex drives who frequently initiate expect their man to reciprocate sexual cues, to signal he’s ready and warmed up. If we’re constantly slowly simmering, it takes a lot less to hit boiling point. This is why fostering affection doesn’t result in sex. At best it’s neutral. At worst it distracts us from being sexual. This is also why game is all about building tension: if you aren’t constantly sexual, the pot stops boiling and you could be anywhere from warm to needing to start over.

Women married to men with high libidos have to know that these men are also more likely to pursue additional outlets for their libidos.

2: If a man rejects sex from a woman too often, is rarely ready, wants sex once or twice a week because his T is too low and always wants a quick couple of minutes in the same position, ie, if he wants “just the regular please”, I can’t see how anyone would cope. From time to time, the regular will be needed. Maybe there isn’t much time, the other rooms aren’t available, you’re in a rough patch or a dry spell due to stress and just need to get the ball rolling again… But even then, when you know what’s going to happen you may as well open a book, to be honest. And if that’s your entire sex life, where’s the enjoyment? It’s reducing it to just a biological function, like buying macdonald’s instead of making a steak burger dinner.

This is a cynic’s view of relationship sex and durability, which means it has more truth value than the happy-clappy romantic view of sex.

Maxim #40: Men are strictly monogamous only insofar as their options for sexual variety are limited.

There are, of course, individual and race-based differences in the predilection for men to pursue multiple sex partners (concurrent or consecutive). But the general rule stands: Men, more than women, have strong NATURAL sexual urges to FUCK every pretty young woman they lay eyes upon. And men with OPTIONS will, often enough to put the lie to the “cads are sickos” theory, fulfill their non-monogamous desires.

The problem of stale relationship sex is intrinsic to differences in sexual desire between men and women. Over time, (usually about two years), a man will lose that groinal fire for his girlfriend or wife. This is inevitable, and coupled with the tendency of women to pack on the pounds and the nagger attitude after they have extracted commitment from a man, it should surprise no Realthinker that bed death isn’t solely a morbidly obese lesbian phenomenon.

The staleness of regular sex is compounded by further insults to relationship stability that are less physiological in nature than psychological. One, women, due to their hypergamous compulsions, will gradually lose attraction for their loyal and dependable male partners, unless those men initiate countermeasures to combat their women’s emotional and vaginal atomization. (Read “countermeasure”: GAME). It is a fact of LTRs and marriage that both men and women get complacent, which means men get BETA and SOFT and women get FAT and NAGGARDLY.

Two, if the character of the men that women are currently choosing to form long-term commitments is changing toward a SOFTER, EFFEMINATE, BETA NORM, than we will see more complaints from those women about their men’s ability to SATISFY them. And in fact I do think the character of Western men is changing to one that is less masculine and more supplicating.

My answer to this problem of stale “regular sex” is that men should not be penalized or admonished for desiring sex with many women (and sometimes fulfilling their desire), just as women are not and never have been penalized nor admonished for hypergamously desiring the best man they can get and for pushing him sooner rather than later into promises of lifelong commitment. This is a double standard — or if you prefer, a different standard — that is necessary to accommodate the differing psychologies and darwinian imperatives of men and women.

If a man is happy to be in a monogamous relationship for life with the woman he loves, then the anti-cad “red pillers” ought to get on board with the CH recommendation that these men would benefit themselves AND their women if they learned game aka the art and science of applied charisma, as a method of reinvigorating flagging relationships. But I doubt these particular anti-cad red piller types will ever see the light, because many of them nurse intense envy of men who bed desirable women and make no apology for it.

This is spot on. You can tell who is a poseur and who really has options by their attitude about male monogamy/promiscuity: the affected poseurs–who have to work prohibitively wearingly hard to get laid–will blather about getting bored with pussy and wanting to settle down and feeling no urge to cheat. They moralize and scold men who feel a deep primal urge to spread the seed far and wide.

Of these men who really have options and don’t act on them, they’re exercising real restraint (and, if you wish, virtue) rather than post-hoc moralising when they really don’t.

[CH: the original study is not online yet, so I can’t parse it for truth value without the feminized media filter distortion. anyway, i bet you a million bucks the study has a major limitation which renders it irrelevant to the subject of this post.
any guesses what that limitation might be?
no?
ok, i’ll tell you.
temporality.
in layman’s terms, the oxytocin effect likely wears off after, oh, two years together.
which is why i specified in this post a two year timeline as the period after which men in committed relationships start seriously entertaining fantasies about sex with other women.]

I don’t lack any options for sexual variety. Two women (HB6 & HB7) cold-approached me last Fri. night. Use Gamer’s Iceberg Preseletction Rule: The number of women who are passively interested in you is seven times those who actively indicate interest. Hence, there were fourteen at that venue. I was in competition with 30-something bodybuilders and they are young enough to be my kids.

PFA, but it seems to be true from my experience. I look for IOI’s, but there are a lot of women who want an approach but won’t signal. Whether it’s 5X, 6X, 7X, etc., there’s always pussy that won’t signal. Maybe shy, maybe just got dumped, maybe doesn’t want to look too slutty, etc.

Your options being limited may include internal stress at hiding an affair from the wife or of breaking your own internal principals, threat of divorce-rape, getting an STD (if you’re like me and a bit of a hypochondriac) etc. Lack of options isn’t limited to women not wanting to fuck you.

God, it’s like you people are women. Your personal experiences don’t matter AT ALL in isolation. Even allowing for self-reporting, which is biased, anecdotal evidence doesn’t matter much. I don’t understand why you took it personally nor why other commentators discussed your experiences(I don’t dispute their veracity, but their relevance). We will have to wait for the study to be out and read the methodology. One huge ass flaw is the relevance of the study in real life – where we don’t have oxytocin shot up our noses. Because if I give cocaine to a chick and fuck her, you can’t conclude that I have to make her happy to have her consent just because both released dopamine in her brain.

[CH; my beef with the study asdgamer linked is that it, like most studies of its kind, isn’t a longitudinal analysis. all it concludes is that oxytocin somehow influences committed men to distance themselves from attractive single women. it doesn’t say anything about the role or influence of oxytocin over time, which is what matters to the relevance to this post. sure, a man can be blinded by love for a while, but for most men that fades with time. and after the fade, he’s going to start looking at other women in a sexual way again.]

2. Since there’s a dearth of studies, self-reporting is perhaps the best evidence that we have.

3. Your point about nasally-delivered oxytocin is a general attack on experimental studies. Meh.

4. CH’s point that the study isn’t as directly applicable to the post as a longitudinal study would be is a good one. We aren’t sure how relevant it is, but it is the best evidence that we have. I’m curious what the impact of delivering vasopressin would be and a cocktail of oxytocin/vasopressin. CH goes too far in implying that the study has no relevance because it isn’t longitudinal. The study certainly is relevant despite not being perfectly on point.

5. I’m autistic and my experiences may be more representative of my autism than of chemically-induced distancing. Blinding by love has nothing to do with my (minimal) repulsion from young bangable women. Autism prevents a man in a LTR from wanting to bang other women. For a man in a committed relationship, seeing a beautiful woman and not wanting to bang her is one of the major items used to diagnose autism.

yep, that’s why we have the term ‘wife goggles”. a man who is kept very happy by his woman may still have attraction towards other women but he is less likely to act on it. doesn’t mean he lacks options.

yes, that is true but part of the reason we see our girls that way even after many years is because we have a bond with them. you already know this because you mention oxytocin.

my point is, if a women is pleasing you properly. maintaining her looks. trying to please you AND you have a healthy sexual relationship that keeps the both of you bathed in oxytocin. you will be less inclined to seek out or engage in relationships with other women. that’s how it’s supposed to be.

i feel for you that you don’t have that bond with your wife. i’ve been there.

Mrs. Gamer is still a good-looking HB6, especially when she’s horizontal. She makes an effort to look good for me.

Also, Mrs. Gamer is never boring and I love her melodious voice. Even if the sex is the same, it’s somehow never the same. I don’t know how to express this, but it’s like she has to be seduced every time. Yet Mrs. Gamer is very eager, all at the same time. She will giggle as I do something, protesting “No, no, no” even as she enjoys it. So, seduction and a little drama from ASD. Playfulness and the Chase every time.

No, Heartiste, sex with the same woman over a lifetime doesn’t have to be boring. Also, there’s something valuable in knowing that you are the only man that your woman will ever have.

The more women I sleep with the more I go meh. Bad sex good sex but as Hank Moody once said it is mostly all pointless pussy. The human body is all about supply and demand. Once you have an abundance of anything you get bloated. Plus the more women you interact with and get passed their bulls hit mystique and sexiness you realize they are head wreckers, not very interesting intellectually and are full of jealousy and hatred especially for other girls. They are two faced superficial and boring. It is a great point in life if you reach this comforting zone and thought.

(1) A White man would choose a woman to live in his house and bear his children.

(2) A White woman who couldn’t get a man would be childless in her parents’ house, or a whore / priestess. A White woman could usually get a better deal from another man than be the second wife / concubine / mistress.

(3) Bastards have no reproductive future unless they earn a name through heroism.

Any resources a White man doesn’t spend on his legitimate children is by definition wasted and, worse, strong taboos mean fucking around could cause problems. White women, meanwhile, get *very* scared if they see their man flirting.

Thus, it is evolutionarily reasonable for White men to not even be interested in fucking around.

Unlikely to be temporality.
[CH: real world observation easily demonstrates the falsity of the theory that oxytocin influences men’s mate market behavior much beyond the heady first years of a relationship. pair bonding hormones just don’t work that way.]

That would require controlling too narrow a pair-bonding window and cherry-picking the test subjects. Too easily disproved by competing research groups who could easily obtain publication of contrary results.

You can read the original article at a uni library.

Although I no longer experience the “in love” feeling for Mrs. Gamer, I still experience the distancing effect wrt other women.

[i don’t know your particulars, so don’t take this personally, but i’ve noticed a lot of taken men will “pretend” to distance themselves from available, single, pretty women on the pretext of their relationship status as an ego assuaging attempt to make themselves feel more desirable to other women than they really are.]

“i don’t know your particulars, so don’t take this personally, but i’ve noticed a lot of taken men will “pretend” to distance themselves from available, single, pretty women on the pretext of their relationship status as an ego assuaging attempt to make themselves feel more desirable to other women than they really are”

The distance differential in the article is measured in cm.

I ask pretty young women to dance all the time–cold-approaching. One of them (HB8) even confronted Mrs. Gamer with one of her arms around me and her other hand on her hip. That broad also jumped up and hugged me with her legs to put on a show on another evening. She was a trip.

I have to fight urges to increase the distance when bangable women move close to me. Last Fri. night one (HB6) moved close so that her lips were right to my ear while chatting and we were cheek to cheek. She had cold-approached me and asked-no-begged me to dance. And at one point she decreased the distance in our dancing. And asked me to dance with her again next time she was in town.

I can count on one hand the number of women (out of hundreds) who have asked my marital status. One of those was even more attracted and it was a turn on.

“from that research: “The term “monogamy” does not imply lifelong exclusive mating with a single individual.”

Or it may imply serial monogamy. One of the pair might die. Some promiscuity occurs in prairie voles.

The big danger of the lie is that it leads to a dangerous false conclusion:

Premise 1: Men only desire “variety” when there is something wrong with their primary relationship.

Premise 2: I desire variety.

Conclusion: There must be something wrong with my primary relationship.

The knowledge that ALL men intrinsically desire variety is essential to recognizing that there’s nothing wrong at home, the urge to stray is perfectly normal. Your response to this urge depends on your moral code, you either indulge or you don’t, but at least you know that you don’t need to dump a perfectly good wife just because you are bored.

What worries me now, more than ever, is the effect of our promiscuity on the women. I’ve finally cracked the code, and it’s horrifying. I’m working on a big visual to explain it, but I’ll need another hour or two to put it all together. Bottom Line: The more aggressively Dark Triad the interactions with your various mistresses become, the more you are spreading The Darkness into their various hearts, and eventually, on a civilization-wide basis, it all ends in complete disaster.

You haven’t read the book My Secret Garden have you? Even back in the early century (hell Adam and Eve), women are not the snowflakes you make them out to be. They aren’t corrupted by Dark Triads; they are simply hypergamous by nature.

No, they ARE corrupted by the Dark Triad, and it quickly becomes all-consuming. I’ve completely cracked The Code – I finally know how it all works. It’s why women’s notch counts proceed as {1, 2, INFINITY}. I understand everything now. It all makes sense. Once they go Dark, they never come back.

yes…yes it is…but you haven’t gone far enough bc you’re still a little bit ‘white knightish’…i can tell by your view point of ‘saving’ women = they start as innocent and are corrupted/contaminated by puas (Dark Triad) actions…

just for pedantic thoroughness and so that your visual has more ‘red pill’ goodness…this:

“The more aggressively Dark Triad the interactions with your various mistresses become, the more you are spreading The Darkness into their various hearts…”

needs to change to:

“The more aggressively Dark Triad the interactions with your various mistresses become, the less you are suppressing The Darkness that already exists naturally in their various hearts…”

the rest is the same…civilization is on the edge of collapse…and ‘disaster’ is a ride at Disneyland compared to what’s likely to develop…unless Trump can pull it around…lol…

the problem with wanting puas to save the world by not sarging HBs is that the lack of ‘suppression’ for the most part, doesn’t come from the Dark Triad pua interactions. the numbers of successful puas is relatively tiny. this shit is HARD…AND horrifying…and most men don’t even have a clue = beta good guys…and try talking to some random blue piller about this stuff and you get shunned in meat world…lol…regardless of the “dude! you totally just walked over and TALKED to her!…” attitude…lol…it’s like criticizing some surf dudes for surfing that tsunami that’s off shore and heading in to wipe out everyone…you know it’s coming…they know it’s coming…but there’s nothing those surf dudes can do to stop it (even as a collective group 100x bigger than they actually are), so why not enjoy the ride…

the real problem with ‘lack of suppressing’ the intrinsic Darkness comes from feminism and related ‘progressive’ ideology…multiculti marxism is a leading contender…and the fact that there are HUGE numbers of good guy betas that are ‘logical’ and listening to what girls SAY…and not what they DO…

your efforts to save the world/civilization would be better spent on starting a pua ‘school’ and teaching pua for free to any beta good guy that wanted to learn…bc that’s the only way that girls’ innate Darkness can be dealt with effectively = when a critical mass number of beta good guys KNOW how girls work and are willing to act like MEN use to act…only then will society/civilization have a chance…

so, good luck on your efforts to turn the tide, i wish you the best, but the historical record tells me that has only happened in the past following some huge collapse of civilization bc then sex roles become necessary for survival and not merely as a ‘suggested preference’…lol…

HABD, reply in m0d. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, except to say that “NAWALT” Female Goodness is more of an Empirical phenomenon, rather than a Deterministic phenomenon, since The Code dictates that Female Goodness varies strictly as n=0 or n=1 or n=2 or n=INFINITY.

On spreading PUA to save society. Society has no chance either way, if it is done or not. Using these various techniques to keep the decay at bay is just that, it keeps it at bay but eventually the underlying primitive aspects of humanity win out. It’s like entropy. It takes more and more energy to hold it off. And yes humanity will have to start over again but if such techniques are still needed it just means another cycle of growth and destruction.

> “eventually the underlying primitive aspects of humanity win out” ——— Jesus Christ, let’s hope and PRAY that our Ancestors imbued in us [both White men and White women] a sufficiently strong genetic predisposition towards K-Selection and 1-Man/-Woman that the White race doesn’t have to recreate that achievement from scratch. Pulling the White race up out of the rank bestial sewer of R-Selection must have required 50,000 to 150,000 years of blood sweat and tears being shed by our Ancestors.

I have to agree with Co here. How many of us have broken a good girl’s heart? A very high percentage of female insanity in our society is due to this fuck and chuck mentality and childlessness. We are a big reason so many women are poor quality today since no one’s actions are in a vacuum.

lol, stop rationalizing that you’re actually leaving girls better than you found them and that you’re not actually causing lasting pain in their hearts. Much like men are destroyed emotionally by divorce to the point they don’t even reason properly anymore(go read MRA sites filled with MGTOW guys), women do get harmed by bad boys and failed relationships and these things do manifest themselves in their personalities. Not denying that women are hypergamous or that they’re innately attracted to men who exhibit Dark Triad traits. But it’s obvious as shit that girls push the edges of what they do sexually with each new guy and she wants a more alpha guy as the next guy to give her even stronger tingles and they end up being used up sluts with no souls.

There’s no reason to not pump and dump them because someone else will do it anyway, but don’t pretend that somehow your actions don’t cause harm. It’s perfectly normal to prioritize your pleasure to the harm you bring others, but it is what it is.

All men want to be the alpha male (note: singular).
Why?
Because the alpha is the boss and it is we who gets all women. “The harem” is thus the natural state of beeing.

Then came civilisation and so began the descent. The beta males who until then had no real chance to get a woman or children, suddenly started to change nature to their advantage. EVERY man – no matter how worthless his genes or how poor he was – should be entitled to have a woman and children. But only ONE woman to keep those alpha males in check.

The band of beta males, the group of second class males to enforce these rules is called “goverment”.

Goverment is no friend of the alpha male. Never was and never will be.

> “the alpha male” ——— Your problem there is with the definite article “the”. The Code says that there is no “THE Alpha”, because The Code says that the concept of Alpha is NON-CONSTANT, ergo alluding to “THE Alpha male” is to imply that the concept of Alpha could be constant, which is in direct violation of The Code.

The first government was the alpha male who took the resources from all the other males so he could have everything. Trouble is that resulted in all the other males not producing anything beyond subsistance and humanity could not advance. The top alpha might have been on top but that’s all he had.

Thus the methods by which the alphas at the top of the pyramid steal the resources of everyone else has changed over time to bring them more and more for less and less effort. Today’s system is a result that has been refined over thousands of years. Today’s system is best described has free range human farming. It produces the most wealth to be taken and domesticates the human population like livestock.

What this blog continually misses is that the real alphas are behind the scenes. The top or real alphas don’t just behave in that manner, they weaken and destroy anyone who may pose a threat to them. They manage society for their own benefit. In today’s system this is done through the NGOs, political policies, trade policies, central banks, funding activist groups, government control of schools, UN agendas, and so on.

The goal is to keep society weak but productive. To keep the wealth flowing up the pyramid without the whole thing collapsing until and if they want it to. Think of a pimp but on a much larger scale. Thus government has always been the tool of the top alphas, not of the betas.

> “The first government was the alpha male” ——— You can’t say “THE Alpha male”. The very syntax violates The Code. Alpha is temporal. Alpha is infinitesimally non-constant. Alpha exists only in the moment.

There exists a place where the “alpha male” still dominates, with no meddlesome second class betas running around forming governments to interfere with the big man in charge. It’s called Sub-Saharan Africa and presently leads the world in grass hut technology.

Descent into fucking women who still have all their teeth, aren’t crawling with lice and ticks, into not having our head bashed in at the first sign of weakness(what do you think happened to that alpha male when he got injured? ;))… God save us from this horror! What you’re referring to is Christianity, not civilization in general.

@B Well said. For an alpha not at the top (lets call them super alphas) the beta dudes who form the grey men of goverments remain a problem he has to deal with nevertheless. No super alpha will help him, and why would he? Nobody loves competition. And thats a problem if you eye to get closer to the top yourself.

This is also the reason I despise men who claim that their wife is their best friend. When the chic leaves, I guess they don’t have a best friend. I discuss things with my actual best friend that I wouldn’t discuss with my wife. My wife understands this, I couldn’t be with a chic who didn’t. Things like: other chics, former girlfriends, thermodynamics, cultmarx crap, gun calibers, etc. Fuck the idiots who buy into ‘wife as best friend’. Do those guys actually HAVE friends? Cheers

But suppose your wife REALLY WERE your Best Friend, the way that she’s supposed to be, in a sane and just and righteous society. And then suppose that you cease to satiate the Hunger in her loins, and that she abandons you, and that you never even saw it coming. There’s a reason that Dante reserved the 9th Circle of Hell for Traitors.

JDC, I’m just saying that there are dudes out there for whom their wives really are their best friends [and may the Good Lord send comfort and succor for their souls when their wives do leave them]. I myself had a few girlfriends whom I thought were my “best friends” until suddenly they weren’t anymore, and I realized in retrospect that I never truly knew [or could know] who they really were [or are]. But boy is it better to get you heart broken like that when you’re still just a kid, and to learn those hardscrabble lessons when nothing really important is at stake yet. PS: In the end, you can only really trust FAMILY, and even some of them will prove untrustworthy.

I do but I live far away from them. I have come to substitute my wife for many of these conversations because we have always been able to talk well to one another. I can talk to my best friend about stuff I can’t talk to my wife about and vice versa. My best friend doesn’t give me blow jobs either.

15-year-old Danish girl murders her mother to be with a 29-year-old asylum seeker who just happens to be called Bakhtiar Mohammed Abdulla. Naturally she is from a broken home and had several much older Muslim “boyfriends” before.

All this happens in some tiny rural town that had been “gifted” with an enrichment center through the usual EU logic of hiding the massive flood of (nearly all young male) “asylum seekers” in the middle of nowhere so that we don’t get a sense of just how rapidly we’re being colonized.

Men and women were meant to procreate. The urges come every day whether we are happy or sad in our relationships.

Met a female friend last weekend at the grocery story. We talked about relationships. I told her, “Mine’s complicated,” and she said she was happily married and would never cheat, but the concept of monogamy was flawed. Translation: Monogamy is boring, and if it wasn’t for her moral code, she’d fuck me on the salad bar.

Interestingly the dynamic is flipped when women cheat: they cheat with men who are more attractive than their partner. The reason is again obvious, while he will bang girls he wouldn’t commit to, she can get banged by guys who won’t commit to her.

When women cheat it’s generally because they are all done with the first man. Like a monkey swinging through a tree, a woman grasps the next branch before releasing the previous one. Women are just as poly as men, except they do it serially.

> ” they cheat with men who are more attractive than their partner” ——— True, with the caveat that it is of fundamental importance to realize what is the only thing which is becoming “attractive” to the Hamster, as N is leaping from 2 to INFINITY.

She has to know that you have options. Even a man who is dedicated to a monogamous relationship for religous reasons still needs to subtly let his wife know that, hey, other women find him attractive enough, so she’d better stay shaped up. This means he shouldn’t go beta and soft; if he has, then he needs to shape himself up, and Athol’s MAP is not a bad way to go about it, but there certainly are others. Spice it up, kink it up, whatever it up. She needs the illusion that he has a harem, even just a potential harem she must compete with, and he needs the illusion of such a harem, or at least the knowledge that she’s totally his private slut, DTF without hesitations or reservations.

tl;dr
Preselection is a feature of women, not a bug. Even just the illusion of options sets a woman’s preselection hamster churning away, to the benefit of both.

Preselection and an aloof, indifferent attitude attracts women – so variety presents itself as a matter of course. Being unobtainable is sexy – and applying a little charisma and spiking attraction in other women establishes your high Sexual Market Value. Your woman wants nothing more than to affirm having landed a high value man.

But experience bears out that other women will only go so far – there is a huge difference in being attracted to an alpha cad – and being attracted to a married alpha cad. There’s just no plausible deniability for banging another womans’ husband – Read: Atomic Powered ASD. Statistically, only 1 in 14 women would. So, while variety gets paraded before a married man – in truth, these women are less accessible to him than to a single guy with fewer options.

That – more than stale monogamous sex – is the greatest source of frustration.
Happily though, you can take that out on your wives now primed muff.

My guess is that he is directing it at “TradCons” who are in fact TradCucks. If the TradCucks get a taste of the efficacy of Dread Game in their marriages, then they might wake up to the bonechilling reality of the omnipotent Evil which is the Dark Triad, and how {Dark Triad} + {Hypergamy Unleashed} will necessarily obliterate Western Civilization. And then maybe the TradCucks will correctly direct their murd3r0us rage at Eskimo Psychiatry Inc, which so carefully maneuvered all of the un-Pieces of the un-Puzzle into un-Place.

Its never phrased quite that way but plenty who understand that monogamy is great for civilizations try to rationalize it like that. More of a neoreactionary-ish thing that has some overlap with the manosphere.

Heartiste, There have been a few girls I am fucking right now….all of them are around 2 points below my SMV. But I am getting regular action so I ain’t complaining.

One thing I noticed is that these girls will act the same way beta males act with hot girls. They try to entertain me when I am not in the mood. Like literally trying to make me laugh, entertain,put in effort which you just don’t see the hot girls doing it for you or these same girls doing it for other guys.

I play the aloof alpha card. suits my personality as well and I am able to pull it off pretty well.

Like this one chick, I never even showed interest in her whenever we met(thru social circle).I knew she was wildly attracted to me…she qualified…some comfort and she escalated physically all the time whenever we met.She actually made things happen like got drunk and got to my place unannounced to fuck me.I never made a physical move first….was just leading until the bedroom…..some kino escalation….kissing then F-close. Didn’t have to work for anything. Felt like a hot chick having to do no work to get laid. Played the aloof alpha card all the time and it worked like charm.( never fell for her shit-test, total indifference at times even during LMR….no neediness)

I’d appreciate a more in-depth post on how women act with alpha males the same way beta guys act around hot girls.

There is another distinction that can be made here, one that will always be lost on feminists/libtards, but may also not be immediately apparent to followers of game.

Monogamy may be *chosen* by a man in order to channel and control his passions.

Of course, this view of monogamy presupposes:
1. A man accepts his natural instincts (ie doesn’t deny them, or pretend they don’t exist, like a feminist/liberal would)
2. Those instincts, left to their own devices, can become morally and spiritually destructive.

Reasonable men will have legitimate differences over this. I just wanted to put it out there. Red pill Christians will see where I’m coming from.

As per these famous essays on the subject The Path from Promiscuity to Monogamy that use the Tullock Competition Function and Evolutionary Invasion Analysis there were 4 categories of men in pre-monogamous societies:

Those top level men that earned the majority, 80% or more of conceptions, through competition, say in a study considering a group of 10 men, the top 1 or 2. These men spent nearly all their time in competition or sex.

The second level men that were able to gain some conceptions and mate guarded and they spent nearly 100% of their time mate guarding. This mate guarding, since it is an activity of males that are not in the top level is “shamed” by women.

The third level of men that gain access to sexual activity via provisioning. And we see that the provider beta, even though he offers real resources is also ridiculed by women. I think this explains why men that frequent prostitutes are also so rebuked by women. And indirectly, the same goes for porn. Once a woman is ‘aware’ that her man has participated in either, the horror that he is a low status monkey trading apples for sex, causes her to recoil in disgust.

The lowest category is the man that trades “care” for female access. And we see this how “house husbands” dry up the vag quicker than any other male behavior or how men that follow the Dr Phil prescription for repairing a marriage and help with the chores, never really see the remedy they seek.

The men that would display this anti-cad attitude, even red pill guys, would probably be in the second level and the shaming words for the cad is part of the whole mate guarding thing.

Now with that said, there is this idea of trickle down monogamy and it is somewhat enforced by society. Notice when the highest level alphas are caught stepping “outside”, ala Bill C, there is a lot of screaming. This is because monogamy works far better if the top level will marry and “stay home”. If the highest level men mate and are faithful, then this trickles down as women rush to claim the best of what is left. But if alpha is out there and his genes can be had, then women will not submit to the regime of monogamy.

I was quite happy the other evening to have my wife of twelve years accuse me of adultery. It wasn’t so much an accusation as an earnest if rather drunken line of enquiry about my fidelity. I reassured her that no, I was not currently fucking anyone but my wife. I then fucked her silly and defiled her before leaving for work.
It was the fulmination of some dread work I had been laying down and for her to get to the point of accusing me of it let me know my subtle hints and clues of potential competition for her were having the desired effect. She hates thinking that I have or am cheating but it also eases her hypergamous instincts by assuring her that I am worthy of other women’s interest and therefore worthy of her interest too. That little sting of competition is like a firm slap on the ass half way through sex, it’s a wake up call that sets a contrast and brings things into sharp relief for her id.

I really think this flawed thinking is the result of too many single mom raised men. (Sorry guys it’s true)

The first false premise is that what a woman once told you (e.g. a woman just wants a loyal man) is actually WHAT women want.

The second false premise is that a woman will reward a man for doing what a woman says she wants (e.g. loyalty).

All of red pill game theory and practice in the past few years pretty much blows apart both premises. Older influential Women have pretty much sold a bill of goods to young men. The trained to be perfect betas because that is what their mothers and mothers friends and sisters actively rewarded via behavior feedback.

For example I know a beta friend who went SHOPPING with his mother and aunts. He proudly talked about how he was the 13 year old purse tree.
Fast forward to his first real live in girlfriend… and he spooked her with his constant “let’s go shopping talk”. His girlfriend complained about his er… performance *cough” and asked if he was secretly gay due to this feminized beta talk.

I could not articulate to him then (I was pretty beta back then myself). But now I would say if you really believe that loyalty buys you ANYTHING in an LTR you are fooling yourself. Or you have a 2 point deficit girlfriend. Or a 3rd worlder who is in her pre-west-bitch phase.

The minimum any man should be doing in an LTR is soft dread amused mastery.

True and part of this was a feeling of working too hard for too little when I was with my crazy ex. At first all she wanted to do was bang. Then suddenly I was “uncaring” because I wanted to bang….I didn’t “Understand” her etc etc.

I sensed this was all a manifestation of Cluster B behaviours and resisted the urge to ask “What’s wrong??” instead going radio silent for weeks at a time. But since I was in a relationship I had no back up.

Now, I have a small rotation which ebbs and flows…two girls are away so I see one every few weeks. We don’t go on dates, she comes over and we cook, then bang. Seems to work for both of us although neither of us says it.

One of the girls I was banging did get needy asking if she could come out to things I was going to. Dropped her. It was such a turnoff.

@ads comfort…this is an interesting dynamic. The girls want alpha. Then suddenly their needs change. But their needs often change based on an internal not external dynamic–their emotions shift. What attracted them suddenly scares them. Also women are very good at separating guys they bang vs their “comfort” guys.

I haven’t been the guy who gives comfort. But the dynamic is part of an exchange. If the girl pushes away….then I push away. It’s best not to be part of a girl’s fore and hindbrain struggle…let the two fight it out and then see whether what emerges is something I want to continue being a part of.

I’ve wrestled with the “comfort” idea. Many have commented. It may be my blind spot.

Do you give them orders? Tell them what you want them to do for you? Have them make “sammiches”? Do you talk a bit with them about your interests?

They are probably having insecurity attacks and need reassurance that you aren’t going to dump them. If you give them orders, they will think that by obeying those orders they will “keep” you and win. If you share your interests with them, they will feel that you have rapport and will be more likely to keep them.

And every single one of those chicks who got ‘weird and clingy’ with Le Petit Nihilist is now RUINED. Their notch counts just leapt from 1 to 2 to INFINITY. The Darkness has taken ahold of their hearts. Their immortal souls are now DOOMED.

I suppose the reason their moods change is because they want alpha with their pussies, but then they want a relationship so their mind goes into relationship checklist mode and they want you to act like a comfort guy. If you’re happy though, it doesn’t matter. Being the comfort guy is probably lame. My routine sex comes from two exes of mine that have boyfriends and it’s rather amusing how sexless the returns for their comforting behaviors are. It works for me though: when they want sex, I give it to them and they go back to cuddle with their boyfriends or whatever. Got bored of them, but it’s hard to turn down sex with no strings attached in order to go game girls and play a numbers game. It feels like I’m settling.

Reading comments made on articles about these migrants on AP, Reuters, WSJ, The Economist and pretty much every single major publication I read has the people against this shit outnumber those who have ‘da feelz’. So it’s mostly the governments.

Keep the posts as short as possible. The WordPress software [frontend and backend] seem to have been fine-tuned for very short posts like TXTs and Tweets. Also, post at weird times of day. Not at peak usage times, when the system starts to experience “brownouts” and “blackouts”.

“My answer to this problem of stale “regular sex” is that men should not be penalized or admonished for desiring sex with many women (and sometimes fulfilling their desire)”

Alpha males are NOT punished for extra-marital affairs. The wife, if she’s smart, simply accepts this as part of marrying a high-status man and doesn’t really care because she still has the only access to his resources. If the wife is stupid, she blames herself for failing him and makes him a cake to symbolize how she’ll try to be better.

But if a loyal Beta strays just once and for good reason. . .it’s curtains.

The difficulty in giving a shivving is that someone would have to, A: Read the whole thing and, B: Take it seriously. Complete dreck. From the parts I could make it through, I gather that if an XY male wrote it, he rarely gets laid. If an XX female wrote it, she’s an entitled cunt. Cheers

I’ve always been impressed by how if you are laying the pipe hard on a woman, she magically doesn’t “see” your other dalliances. Thank god for wishful thinking. Anyways what is she going to do for punishment- Take away the sex that she enjoys so much?

I hear you. And yet you’re playing on easy mode. Just wait for her to go through one or two pregnancies and see first hand what it does to a woman, both outside and inside. Now your willpower is seriously tested.

His problem is that their f0rnication is purposeless – it is fundamentally anti-sexual in nature – because a child is not being born nine months later. If he really “l0ved” her, then they would already have two kids, with possibly a third on the way. Her problem, on the other hand, is that, if he abandons her now, then she is RUINED. He has given her a taste of Alpha, ergo her notch count just leapt from 1 to 2 to INFINITY. If she were smart [and virtuous], then she’d have an “oops” pregnancy by him, and give him a child, but she’s probably too gullible and too badly brainwashed by Gramscian Eskimo Psychiatrists to risk doing something so clever and productive and purposeful.

> ” ergo her notch count just leapt from 1 to 2 to INFINITY” ——— Let me correct that. Having tasted Alpha, her notch count now stands at 2. If he abandons her, then her notch count immediately jumps to INFINITY, she is ruined, and her immortal soul is doomed. So either Man Up, and give her the Alpha-seed children which she deserves, or Wuss Out, and abandon her, and let The Darkness move into her heart and destroy her. Those are his two choices. Or maybe she’ll out-smart him and have the Oops! pregnancy and give him an Alpha-seed child. One can only hope.

Spot on as usual. There is no such thing as natural monogamy. It can be a choice, a sacrifice you are willingly doing for the sake of creating a certain kind of environment for your relationship and your family, or simply out of respect for the girl’s own sexual loyalty.

But a sacrifice it remains, no matter how much mental masturbation you wrap it in. Yet this mental masturbation is necessary if you’re willing to commit in a monogamous relationship, if only to motivate yourself to keep gaming your SO. Full cynism doesn’t get along well with LTRs.

There’s a metapoint here: Civilization itself is unnatural, but not everything natural is necessarily good. The natural state of affairs is a Hobbesian original position, and, as in that scenario, we sacrifice a certain level of freedom to obtain a certain level of security. All regulated areas of life (99.99%?) are products of this give-and-take. How much stability and social standing are you prepared (or can you afford) to sacrifice for a polygynous lifestyle in a(n ostenstibly) monogamous culture?

The question is of stability because nobody in their right mind still cares about social standing. I’d have to give a damn and respect society first – then I’d care if it approves of what I’m doing or not. And I don’t care for this feminist-communist utopia we inhabit one bit.

It’s no secret that I’m a LTR guy here with options. I’m not looking to bed every woman that turns my head, but I could. I’m really selective with how hot, sweet, mentally stable, and feminine a woman is before agreeing to commit. As such, I’ve had a total of 5 LTRs in my life but they all have been bigtime head turners. Sure in between times I have had romps with some random ass hoes, but the ultimate goal is always a great LTR, not a notch count of 1,000.

That said, anyone who believes that game is not fundamentally and viscerally required in a relationship to make it work and keep the fire alive for any length of time has obviously never tried relationship game. You can turn a nagging bitch into an adoring Venus if you’re really good at it. The power is limitless because it allows you to keep the single most important thing in ANY interaction with a woman you’re sexually involved with: HAND.

Game works. Period. One of the wisest sayings CH has ever printed was something to the effect of “90% of marriage counselor a could save their patients marriage with two words: tease her.”

I’m married and have been happily married for many years. Game works. It’s nothing but preparing your message so that the listener will be inclined to receive it. It’s not immoral, it’s just good communication skills.

The instincts are real, and that’s why traditional moral codes were so strict. People had a better understanding of human nature in the past (no matter how they explained it). People understood that the vast majority of individuals (male and female) have to hold their instincts in check in order for society to flourish.

Furthermore, it took the White Race possibly 150,000 years to pull itself up from the bestial squalor of R-Selection and to become the ONLY race to achieve truly human K-Selection [== {1-Man}/{1-Woman}]. Yet now we are at the edge of the precipice, where our single greatest biological achievement, and the 150,000-year-sacrifice on the part of our Ancestors in achieving it, is about to be pushed off the edge of the precipice, and into the Abyss, brought to you courtesy of R-Selected Eskimo Psychiatry Incorporated and the Gramsci Project.

I have long contemplated offering up my thoughts on this matter. I have a woman, a long-term relationship, and while I can see certain changes (approaching the intermediate wall) that may not help with flagging desire from monogamous sex, I know I am headed for the DANGER ZONE.

Like many of us, I wasn’t celibate in college but I didn’t do the damage I could have done because I was a late bloomer. When I met with more success, more women wanted to be with me (or would be convinced with a hell of a lot less effort) The truth is, the things that attract (and repulse, so she says) my woman are the things that ensnared her in the first place (my variety of sexual experiences.)

Now that I have her, I see every flaw, I even recoil at them. Having a fit woman, I now would rejoice in the clutches of a voluptuous, big-breasted woman. Having a fair, blonde, I would now exult ravishing a raven-haired beauty. She does have real flaws but I know even from my past that I was most excited sexually by variety. When I didn’t need to concern myself with “spicing things up” I was aroused any time I was around them, after mere moments. Even in one of my most emotionally engaged relationships, I could sense myself detaching and the diminution of my sexual impulse over time.

Two things present the biggest obstacles for me:

1) Whatever “alpha” I’ve projected has made her insufferable. Constantly under me, on me, talking about “us”, not giving me space or any sense of the mystery or chase that may animate many of us in the first place. In a sense, she’s become a female version of a super-beta (at best) male, the neediness and child-like aspects are wearing thin and I wonder at what a womanly, just ever-so-slightly reserved woman would be like.

2) The lack of variety is suffocating. This isn’t about buttressing a collapsing ego from female attention, I can see their eyes on me and the way (some) of them act. I get that, that’s satisfying enough in its way. But I crave the actual variety of physical experience to renew what I’d otherwise attribute to a very low testosterone or libido.

The reason we average two bangs a week in LTRs is because of mate guarding by our sperm. Some of the little rascals are designed to just hang around the cervix waiting to attack and block any foreign sperm that show up.

These work for about 3 or 4 days post-bang, hence the twice a week schedule.

To keep the lady primed, I agree that a touch of anxiety about her place in a possible harem does the trick. You need to continue to satisfy her hypergamous criteria so some minor negs or put-downs are necessary, along with keeping your own physical condition up and staying a decent provider – ie maintaining a superior SMV. Nothing ruins your sex life like unemployment.

My relationship of 11 months with my much younger Asian GF is “evolving.”. I’m serious about her as she is well-bred, conservative, and should make a great wife and mother. But she’s cooling sexually although we are otherwise very compatible.

I remind her that I make the big money, I am the worldly sophisticate, and I have a long and successful history with women. I tell her that without hot sex, I make a terrible husband. My story about my recent visit to a Middle East sex bazaar (as an observer with some colleagues) was calculated to reinforce that a night of hot sex with a young woman is only 1000 AED away on any night of the week.

You do have to make some allowance for her hormone fluctuations but you don’t need to be the victim of them.

I need 4-5 times a week, buddy. And it’s about hormone management. My post about relationship management goes into that somewhat. I need to add some detail about calibration, but that will vary a bit from girl to girl.

The urge to spread the seed is male. Yet just because we feel an urge or an emotion doesn’t mean we have to act on it in the way that a woman or 6 year old has to. In an infantilised world the hardest thing to do is resist an urge and hats off to those strong and grown up enough to do it.

Not real enough. I mean, the criticisms that this guy makes are legit, but the ideas of Noel Ignatiev are pretty well spread among leading ‘thinkers’ in the West and nobody really believes that race is a social construct, not even those who posit these arguments. At least that Hungarian dude is sloppy in a sort of right direction.

I’m against the opinion that all men(at least men over 25) would be cads if they could be.

This blog looks at players like a starving man looks at a loaf of bread when neither are the best thing in the world and there’s more to life than fulfilling your base needs no matter how starving you are right now.

He’s not wrong. Providing that the girl is hot and interesting enough(considering the marital laws of today, rich too), I might venture into something on the long haul. I would desire other girls most likely, but it’s a sacrifice many would make for a more stable living given a reasonable choice. The problem is that most women nowadays make horrid companions so it’s not a reasonable choice.

Maybe the Alpha religion of the planet is missing something — this faith which dominates two-and-a-half of the world’s seven billion inhabitants, particularly in places where whites live and thrive, with no other system of philosophy coming close.

Or maybe it’s you, Joe.

Alphas do tend to “overrun” things. It appears we didn’t notice your plaintive whining in the process of negating you.

But I’m noticing you now, Joe. Lay down some truth, brother. I’ll give you sixty seconds of my attention.

Or maybe it’s more like rationalising a mid-life crisis. Most normal lads are caddish when they’re young and as they get on in life they then may think of posterity, legacy and where they want to be in 5 years.

At least amongst the working class it’s this way around(if they’re not in prison or on drugs). Maybe the middle class is different, you began as a gimp and over the years become aware of this and then spend the rest of your life trying not to be one.

Also, would it be better to go down from BMI 21,5 to BMI 20?
According to the SMV test it would be but are those 2kg really that important?
Sorry for spamming… Just delete the comment if it doesn’t fit

From an evolutionary perspective, there are two basic mating strategies for men which many will go back an forth between. One is to pair bond with the highest SMV women they can at an early age and then invest in a large family and the other is to spread their seed as far and wide as possible with little or no parental investment. In case #1 the men will potentially have fewer children who will do better compared to more children who’s success will vary, many of them doing very poorly. This is where cheating comes into play because it is a way of gaming the first scenario.

The spray and prey mating strategy for men and women is bound to be more successful where there is easy resource availability. We know that single mommies feed off the system but in effect so do the baby daddies. But flip that around where these bastards become a millstone and they will stop at one or none while the other couples are hardly effected.

I have long contemplated offering my thoughts on this subject because it is one that has become much more relevant the longer I’m in my relationship. I have a woman, a long-term relationship with a woman who is into realtalk and all the things I should value, and while I can see certain physical changes (approaching the intermediate wall) that may not be of any help to flagging desire from monogamous sex, I know I am headed for the DANGER ZONE.

Like many of us, I wasn’t celibate in college but I didn’t do the damage I could have done because I was a late bloomer. When I met with more success, as you surely know, more women wanted to be with me (or would be convinced with a hell of a lot less effort) The truth is, the things that attract (and repulse, so she says) my woman are the things that ensnared her in the first place (my variety of sexual experiences and the confidence therefrom.)

Now that I have her, I see every flaw, I even recoil at them. Having a fit woman, I now would rejoice in the clutches of a voluptuous, big-breasted woman. Having a fair, blonde, I would now exult ravishing a raven-haired beauty. She does have real flaws that rule her out from being a “10” but I know even from my past that I was most excited sexually by variety, they needn’t be apex women. When I didn’t need to concern myself with “spicing things up” I was aroused any time I was around them, after mere moments if I wanted.

Even in one of my most emotionally engaged relationships, I could sense myself detaching and the diminution of my sexual impulse over time. And this relationship currently does not have the same sexual chemistry and only had that for a brief moment where it overlapped with me seeing someone else. I can only imagine what it would have been like eighteen months in, even with the “passion” I experienced before.

Two things present the biggest obstacles for me:

1) Whatever “alpha” I’ve projected has made her insufferable. Constantly under me, on me, talking about “us”, not giving me space or any sense of the mystery or chase that may animate many of us in the first place. In a sense, she’s become a female version of a super-beta (at best) male, the neediness and child-like aspects are wearing thin and I wonder at what a womanly, just ever-so-slightly reserved woman would be like.

2) The lack of variety is also suffocating. This isn’t about buttressing a collapsing ego from female attention, I can see their eyes on me and the way (some) of them act. I get that, that’s satisfying enough in its way. But I crave the actual variety of physical experience to renew what I’d otherwise attribute to a very low testosterone or libido. The irony is that I could refresh and strengthen my current relationship by not staying fully faithful to it.

I wrote a post about this but it got stuck in mod. I have the same ‘feature’ of liking a girl physically less and less the more I have her and her flaws becoming more obvious to my eyes unless I stop seeing her for a while. I tested this and it works on girls I don’t even fuck. I found a hottie on Instagram and looked at her daily and while she never ceased looking attractive to me, my desire to have her flagged. So I chose another girl on Instagram to check out and then got back to the former girl and she started looking prettier again. It’s weird and I found nothing I can do to mitigate this.

Mind you, I don’t care for passable women and I try to hit only on girls I actually like(not that I don’t have time, I’d just rather lay in bed and read a book than hit on girls I don’t particularly fancy and get bored when she turns out to be a vapid moron too). This is actually a limiting aspect of my development: mustering up the desire to talk to girls that don’t interest me to get better at approaching and building the initial momentum. So it affects all men, even those not primarily interested in variety(e.g. me). I might sound wimpy, but even the variety of emotions that different girls brought out throughout our relationships are things I remember along with the funny memories and the sexual-physical idiosyncrasies. Girls are like uncharted territory: you start going along this path in the mountain, apprehensive about not knowing where you’ll end up, but after the beginning you enjoy the journey… until you get bored of the route and the scenery and just want to go home.

Regarding the former, the reason she behaves that way is because she’s uncertain of your relationship to her and fears you’ll trade up. You have two options:
1)assure her of your relationship with her and make yourself more beta. I personally wouldn’t do this because it’s silly to pretend to be less than you are(lol) and she would bond to you emotionally more(unless you went overboard with the beta, then she’d just resent you over time). I don’t think you want that if you’re uncomfortable with a long term relationship with her or you’re uncomfortable with her being more attached to you. Btw, the realtalk part can be a function of tingles: women will believe whatever you do if they tingle for you bad enough.
2)tell her that her insecurity in your affections will push you into the arms of other women over time and that she must deal with them instead of ruining whatever you two have together.

What the Blue Pill doesn’t teach you is that she is MORE likely to want to be with you IF you are pursuing other women and MORE likely to want to LEAVE you if you keep after just her…

Cats are not dogs. You can’t look at things the same way, you can’t reconcile things the same way.

The thing that will hurt you is if her friends or family know, she can’t overcome the peer network reaction. The peer network negative reaction makes sense though, they all want to limit access to other pussy to increase the value of their own, i.e. why slut shaming by women is so prevalent.

Short FR update – now that I’m off sugar daddy sites, I’m slowly trying to get back to meeting girls IRL.

But the wingman situation in my city is dire (and nonexistent when travelling). There’s a fairly active local lair/forum but a lot of the good guys have left it and the remnants are terrible. I don’t even expect them to be good at Game – I just want a couple of guys who are socially normal, not boring to hang out with, and if we’re out, could plausibly be my buddies on a night out. But it’s really hard to find. And when I do, it’s even more rare to find someone committed to going out regularly.

The bottom line being that I will keep looking, but it seems I have to reconcile myself to going out solo if I am to practice. I am very much a night game person, but I am terrible at keeping up my state and being social if I am out alone. I need to work on that too, but as an interim step I am starting to do daygame.

I’ve only been “out day gaming” 2-3 times before in ten years although I’ve had some success organically getting into chats with girls and closing with numbers etc – situational openers.

First time today..walked round busy downtown office area – stepped into shops etc. Quite hard to get into state and do anything, but I hit my target of two openers (one was literally an old lady, but hey – when the AA is kicking in). The second was a pretty mid-twenties HB7 looking at a shelf for ages in a bookshop and I made her laugh by saying “So much choice..so little time” and got in some solid EC too. Didn’t continue the conversation..

So, first step taken on a new journey. I’ve learned so much with online game, text game and with escalation and sexualising on dates, but it’s time to go back to cold approach basics now..feels weird to be so bad at this again after two years with very little cold approach.

Last night Ben Cuckson came out for Shamnesty, so that the Agricultural Industrial Complex [largely now run by George Soros Inc] can keep its cheap labor, and also for Autism and the Vaccine Industrial Complex, so that legions of Speech Therapists can keep their cushy jobs trying to get Spergtards to talk like normal human beings. The Donald staunchly opposed Ben Cuckson on both of those Game changing surrenders. Plus The Donald refused to criticize Vlad the Bad’s presence in Syria, protecting Aramaic Christianity. At this point, I wouldn’t just walk over broken glass to vote for The Donald – I’d White Knight for him and EAT the broken glass so that the Little Old Blue-Haired White Lady Racists didn’t have to walk over it on their way to voting for The Donald.

So Trump running as a third option was bad because it would help Hillary win, but if the cucks can’t have their cake, they’ll pee all over it since now it became unlikely one of their candidates will win?

This isn’t surprising though, it’s to be expected from ‘the father of neoconservatism’. If Americans want America to be liked by foreigners again, you seriously need to eject these people from your politics, along with all the war mongers and the like. Of course, I’m not talking about leftists because leftist anti-Americanism is an American export(basically EU leftists hate America for not living up to the ideals America exported to them after WW2) and just like your leftists, they’ll never be pleased.

CH will like this one, and the Spirit Within will foaming-at-the-mouth hate it!

[…] This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims:

(1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.

(2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike.

(3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking.

(4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

You know you’re on top when everyone wants a shot at the title and takes swings at you. Trump was ambushed from all candidates tonight (with the help of questions from the moderator) and swatted them away. He did play in the mud with the pigs a bit, but he held his ground most of the night.

He went after a few of the other candidates, most notably the ones who are his greatest challenge (jeb, Fiorina) at the moment (what an alpha does), and saved energy on commenting about/to the lesser candidates. (I didn’t watch all of it so I’m unsure if he sparred with Carson, who’s too calm to pick a fight). Although he made fun of that wimp Rand Paul, which was deserved.

The reaction to that is pathetic. While I do find the Jew conspiracy theories laughable intellectually, the people who hold those beliefs do have a couple of admirable traits, even though intellectualism isn’t one of them: they’re willing to hold unpopular beliefs, do some research, albeit half assedly etc. The whiners about anti-Semitism and xenophobia are so cliche. I wonder if they ever realize how trite everything they say is.

Naming the Jew is shorthand for a complex conspiracy that doesn’t easily reduce to three letters. People without the temperament to understand and articulate that conspiracy — which was purposely designed to obscure itself from a distracted and simple populace — need shorthand.

The Jewish contribution is ultimately tangential, but that truth is way down on the list of promotional priorities when compared to the need to sound the nuclear alarm that something most people cannot fully grasp — a je ne sais quois — is deeply, deeply wrong with our country.

Further, “a big problem this country has is being politically correct, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness.” If we are losing the freedom of political speech, we get it back by going straight for the biggest taboos, which Jew-haters have been doing for years. We have much to learn from their courage and perseverance, if not their theories.

Finally, when we are told we can’t think a certain way, it becomes the free man’s duty to adopt that thought tenfold, whether it is true or not. Look at ebullient sodomite Milo Yiannopoulos making common cause with those who consider him to personally be a mentally-ill deviant. Because bigger things are at stake.

Truth shows itself unexpectedly and via strange methods. It pays to listen for it everywhere and to not shut yourself off from any possible source. That’s why free speech works, despite the high social costs of its accommodation.

“Genetic-Similarity Theory and Ethnic Nationalism” – Prof. Philippe Rushton is a video people should watch. I think the more similar people are in racial/ethnic background the higher level of connectedness and satisfaction in the relationship.

F*ckerberg is worth a lot more than Trump but is married to a sub-5 chick. Donald Trump is married to a hot woman 25 yrs his junior. F*ckerberg might have more money but he’s a little bitch compared to Trump.

Just because a guy settles in a monogamous relationship does not necessarily indicate he is a pussywhipped betaboy. Yes the waters are deep and dangerous, but if u keep your frame it can be satisfying. So never fear her anger and flirt with everybody. A man with options is a man in control.

As you pups push fifty, you might find value getting a new model every few years, because variety and women are boring kiljoys.

Anybody who says that men don’t desire variety for its own sake hasn’t spun more plates in the same time. I don’t have a harem on hand, but I do have sex with a couple of girls and notice this when I glance at pictures of girls online. The more I experience a girl, either in person through sex, or just look at her enough, she becomes a little uglier and plainer in my eyes and other girls I might have passed for the one I experience become prettier in comparison. After a while passes, this effect disappears and I find the girl I had as pretty as when I didn’t, but it does take a few weeks.

I don’t know if this happens to other men too, but it’s similar to another effect I noticed. When I look at a girl’s face it’s easy to find it pretty unless I look with attention and start noticing the flaws. It’s like my brain colors a prettier picture in my head unless I pay attention. It won’t make a fug passable, but it will give a girl a half a point to a point boost in terms of facial attractiveness. I think alcohol dampens our attention and increases the effect of this too.

I think the old CH maxim of a relationship that starts with a spark remains more passionate for the duration holds true. We met in a club, locked eyes across the dancefloor kinda’ deal, and it would have definitely ended in a bang that night if her friends hadn’t dragged her away. She came round the following wednesday and we fucked for 4 solid hours.

I’ve maintained a gym regimen and she’s either maintained or lost weight as the years have passed. We still have a great time in bed, constantly pushing each other and an honest relationship has meant there’s no fear of asking for/or trying something new. Even redpilled her enough that she recognises that if we’ve missed sex for 2-3 days that we start to get snappy and as soon as we have a chance she jumps me or vice versa.

I attribute my happiness within this relationship to game. I found a woman who is perfect for me and the teachings of CH and others have allowed me to live the life I want to live with a woman who lives to please me.

I feel that sleeping with tons of women, getting flags and opening birds all day works for some but all men are unique. That said, game works for all. You read, analyse and interpret, apply it to your individual life and reap the rewards. All men gain need it, whether you play the field, search for a wife or live asexually. It applies to everything, no matter your path.